From: John Hudson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Nov 21 2007 - 15:28:54 CST
Peter Constable wrote:
> I'm not sure why it would be considered questionable practice: There's no a priori requirement for how outlines need to be oriented in the design space, the history is not a determining factor...
Indeed not. I'm not suggesting that the outlines should be laid out RTL instead of LTR.
I'm saying that it is questionable -- i.e. not wrong, but something about which opinions
might differ -- for a normatively *vertical* script to be designed as if it were
horizontal. I say it is questionable because I have heard it questioned. :)
>If the glyphs were drawn rotated 90° clockwise from this orientation, then a CJK-like
transform would be needed for vertical layout, rotating each glyph 90° counter-clockwise.
You mean for horizontal layout, don't you? In vertical layout, a vertically designed
glyphs would be stacked, using something like the VORG table for heights to ensure proper
Moving on: accepting that an LTR layout model makes most sense for Mongolian script, in
that it allows for both a reasonably simple vertical layout and for the more common
instance of horizontal use, what would a user need to do if he did want RTL directionality
e.g. embedded in an Arabic context? Is it possible at all?
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Gulf Islands, BC firstname.lastname@example.org I'm like that Umberto Eco guy, but without the writing. -- anonymous caller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 21 2007 - 15:31:14 CST